IR 05000263/2016002
| ML16223A863 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Monticello  |
| Issue date: | 08/10/2016 |
| From: | Kenneth Riemer NRC/RGN-III/DRP/B2 |
| To: | Gardner P Northern States Power Company, Minnesota |
| References | |
| IR 2016002 | |
| Download: ML16223A863 (36) | |
Text
August 10, 2016
SUBJECT:
MONTICELLO NUCLEAR GENERATING PLANTNRC INTEGRATED AND POWER UPRATE INSPECTION REPORT 05000263/2016002
Dear Mr. Gardner:
On June 30, 2016, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) completed an integrated inspection at your Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant. Inspectors documented the results of this inspection in the enclosed inspection report.
The NRC inspectors did not identify any findings or violations of more than minor significance.
In accordance with Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) 2.390, Public Inspections, Exemptions, Requests for Withholding, of the NRC's "Rules of Practice," a copy of this letter, its enclosure, and your response (if any) will be available electronically for public inspection in the NRCs Public Document Room or from the Publicly Available Records (PARS)
component of the NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS).
ADAMS is accessible from the NRC Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html (the Public Electronic Reading Room).
Sincerely,
/RA/
K. Riemer, Chief Branch 2 Division of Reactor Projects
Docket No. 50-263 License No. DPR-22
Enclosure:
Inspection Report 05000263/2016002
REGION III==
Docket No:
50-263 License No:
Report No:
05000263/2016002 Licensee:
Northern States Power Company, Minnesota Facility:
Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant Location:
Monticello, MN Dates:
April 1 through June 30, 2016 Inspectors:
P. Zurawski, Senior Resident Inspector
D. Krause, Resident Inspector
S. Bell, Health Physicist
L. Rodriguez, Reactor Inspector
A. Dunlop, Senior Reactor inspector
Approved by:
K. Riemer, Chief Branch 2 Division of Reactor Projects
SUMMARY
Inspection Report 05000263/2016002; 04/01/2016-06/30/2016; Monticello Nuclear Generating
Plant; Integrated Inspection Report.
This report covers a 3-month period of inspection by resident inspectors and announced baseline inspections by regional inspectors. No findings or violations were identified by the inspectors. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commissions (NRC) program for overseeing the safe operation of commercial nuclear power reactors is described in NUREG-1649, "Reactor Oversight Process," dated February 2014.
No findings were identified.
REPORT DETAILS
Summary of Plant Status
Monticello operated at, or near, 100 percent power for the inspection period with the following exceptions. On June 4, 2016, the licensee lowered power to approximately 75 percent to perform control rod scram time, turbine valve, and main steam isolation valve testing. Following these activities, power was gradually increased with full power operations re-established on June 5, 2016. The plant remained at full power for the rest of the inspection period with the exception of brief small down-power maneuvers to accomplish load line adjustments or planned surveillance testing activities.
REACTOR SAFETY
Cornerstones: Initiating Events, Mitigating Systems, and Barrier Integrity
1R01 Adverse Weather Protection
.1 Summer Seasonal Readiness Preparations
a. Inspection Scope
The inspectors performed a review of the licensees preparations for summer weather for selected systems, including conditions that could lead to an extended drought.
During the inspection, the inspectors focused on plant specific design features and the licensees procedures used to mitigate or respond to adverse weather conditions.
Additionally, the inspectors reviewed the Updated Safety Analysis Report (USAR) and performance requirements for systems selected for inspection, and verified that operator actions were appropriate as specified by plant specific procedures. Documents reviewed are listed in the Attachment to this report. The inspectors also reviewed corrective action program (CAP) items to verify that the licensee was identifying adverse weather issues at an appropriate threshold and entering them into their corrective action program in accordance with station corrective action procedures. The inspectors reviews focused specifically on the following plant systems:
- low condenser vacuum scram setpoint revision;
- cooling towers and discharge canal; and
- river intake structure.
This inspection constituted one summer seasonal adverse weather sample as defined in Inspection Procedure (IP) 71111.01-05.
b. Findings
No findings were identified.
.2 External Flooding
a. Inspection Scope
The inspectors evaluated the design, material condition, and procedures for coping with the design basis probable maximum flood. The evaluation included a review to check for deviations from the descriptions provided in the USAR for features intended to mitigate the potential for flooding from external factors. As part of this evaluation, the inspectors checked for obstructions that could prevent draining, checked that the roofs did not contain obvious loose items that could clog drains in the event of heavy precipitation, and determined that barriers required to mitigate the flood were in place and operable. Additionally, the inspectors performed a walkdown of the protected area to identify any modification to the site which would inhibit site drainage during a probable maximum precipitation event or allow water ingress past a barrier. The inspectors also walked down underground bunkers/manholes subject to flooding that contained multiple train or multiple function risk-significant cables. The inspectors also reviewed the abnormal operating procedure for mitigating the design basis flood to ensure it could be implemented as written. Documents reviewed are listed in the Attachment to this report.
This inspection constituted one external flooding sample as defined in IP 71111.01-05.
b. Findings
No findings were identified.
1R04 Equipment Alignment
.1 Quarterly Partial System Walkdowns
a. Inspection Scope
The inspectors performed partial system walkdowns of the following risk-significant systems:
- 12 emergency diesel generator (EDG)/emergency service water (ESW) during 11 EDG/ESW maintenance window;
- 12 reactor protection system (RPS) MG during 11 RPS MG maintenance window; and
- 12 control rod drive (CRD) during 11 CRD maintenance.
The inspectors selected these systems based on their risk significance relative to the Reactor Safety Cornerstones at the time they were inspected. The inspectors attempted to identify any discrepancies that could impact the function of the system and, therefore, potentially increase risk. The inspectors reviewed applicable operating procedures, system diagrams, USAR, Technical Specification (TS) requirements, outstanding work orders (WOs), condition reports, and the impact of ongoing work activities on redundant trains of equipment in order to identify conditions that could have rendered the systems incapable of performing their intended functions. The inspectors also walked down accessible portions of the systems to verify system components and support equipment were aligned correctly and operable. The inspectors examined the material condition of the components and observed operating parameters of equipment to verify that there were no obvious deficiencies. The inspectors also verified that the licensee had properly identified and resolved equipment alignment problems that could cause initiating events or impact the capability of mitigating systems or barriers and entered them into the CAP with the appropriate significance characterization. Documents reviewed are listed in the to this report.
These activities constituted three partial system walkdown samples as defined in IP 71111.04-05.
b. Findings
No findings were identified.
1R05 Fire Protection
.1 Routine Resident Inspector Tours
a. Inspection Scope
The inspectors conducted fire protection walkdowns which were focused on availability, accessibility, and the condition of firefighting equipment in the following risk-significant plant areas:
- fire zone 09; control room;
- fire zone 12-A; lower 4 KV room;
- fire zone 13-A; lube oil storage tank;
The inspectors reviewed areas to assess if the licensee had implemented a fire protection program that adequately controlled combustibles and ignition sources within the plant, effectively maintained fire detection and suppression capability, maintained passive fire protection features in good material condition, and implemented adequate compensatory measures for out-of-service, degraded or inoperable fire protection equipment, systems, or features in accordance with the licensees fire plan. The inspectors selected fire areas based on their overall contribution to internal fire risk as documented in the plants Individual Plant Examination of External Events with later additional insights, their potential to impact equipment which could initiate or mitigate a plant transient, or their impact on the plants ability to respond to a security event. Using the documents listed in the Attachment to this report, the inspectors verified that fire hoses and extinguishers were in their designated locations and available for immediate use; that fire detectors and sprinklers were unobstructed; that transient material loading was within the analyzed limits; and fire doors, dampers, and penetration seals appeared to be in satisfactory condition. The inspectors also verified that minor issues identified during the inspection were entered into the licensees CAP. Documents reviewed are listed in the Attachment to this report.
These activities constituted five quarterly fire protection inspection samples as defined in IP 71111.05-05.
b. Findings
No findings were identified.
.2 Annual Fire Protection Drill Observation
a. Inspection Scope
On April 24, 2016, the inspectors observed the fire brigade activation for a simulated fire in the 13 diesel generator room. Based on this observation, the inspectors evaluated the readiness of the plant fire brigade to fight fires. The inspectors verified that the licensee staff identified deficiencies openly discussed them in a self-critical manner at the drill debrief, and took appropriate corrective actions. Specific attributes evaluated were:
- proper wearing of turnout gear and self-contained breathing apparatus;
- proper use and layout of fire hoses;
- employment of appropriate firefighting techniques;
- sufficient firefighting equipment brought to the scene;
- effectiveness of fire brigade leader communications, command, and control;
- search for victims and propagation of the fire into other plant areas;
- smoke removal operations;
- utilization of pre-planned strategies;
- adherence to the pre-planned drill scenario; and
- drill objectives.
Documents reviewed are listed in the Attachment to this report.
These activities constituted one annual fire protection inspection sample as defined in IP 71111.05-05.
b. Findings
No findings were identified.
1R07 Heat Sink Performance
.1 Triennial Review of Heat Sink Performance
a. Inspection Scope
The inspectors reviewed operability determinations, completed surveillances, vendor manual information, calculations, and inspection results associated with the 11 residual heat removal (RHR) service water pump motor cooler (P-109A) and the B RHR room air cooling unit (V-AC-4). These heat exchangers/coolers were chosen based on their risk significance in the licensees probabilistic safety analysis and their important safety-related mitigating system support functions.
For the 11 RHR service water pump motor cooler (P-109A) and the B RHR room air cooling unit (V-AC-4), the inspectors assessed the adequacy of the testing, inspection, maintenance, and monitoring of biotic fouling and macrofouling programs to ensure proper heat transfer of the heat exchangers/coolers. The inspectors reviewed whether:
- (1) the methods used to inspect and clean the heat exchangers were consistent with as-found conditions identified, expected degradation trends, and industry standards;
- (2) the licensees inspection and cleaning activities had established acceptance criteria consistent with industry standards; and
- (3) the as-found results were recorded, evaluated, and appropriately dispositioned such that the as-left condition was acceptable.
In addition, the inspectors reviewed the condition and operation of the heat exchangers/coolers to verify consistency with design assumptions in heat transfer calculations and as described in the USAR. The inspectors also reviewed whether the licensee evaluated the potential for water hammer and whether adequate controls and operational limits were established to prevent heat exchanger degradation due to excessive flow-induced vibration during operation.
The inspectors reviewed the performance of the ultimate heat sink (UHS) and safety-related service water systems and their subcomponents such as piping, intake screens, pumps, valves, etc. by tests or other equivalent methods to ensure availability and accessibility to the inplant cooling water systems. Specifically, the inspectors reviewed the UHS in accordance with NRC IP 71111.07, Heat Sink Performance, Section 02.02, sub-sections d.4 and d.7.
The inspectors reviewed the licensees operation of the service water systems and UHS.
This included a review of procedures for a loss of the service water systems or UHS, and a review of the availability and functionality of instrumentation which is relied upon for decision making. In addition, the inspectors assessed whether macrofouling was adequately monitored, trended, and controlled by the licensee to prevent clogging. The inspectors reviewed whether the licensees biocide treatments for biotic control were adequately conducted and the results monitored, trended, and evaluated. The inspectors also reviewed the service water systems susceptibility to strong pump-weak pump interaction, and the licensees controls in place for susceptible systems. In addition, the inspectors reviewed design changes to the service water systems and the UHS to verify they were not adversely impacted by the changes.
The inspectors performed a system walkdown of the service water intake structure to assess its structural integrity and component functionality. This included observations of the structural integrity of component mounts and an assessment of the functionality of the traveling screens and strainers. The inspectors reviewed licensee activities which monitor, trend, and maintain service water pump bay silt accumulation at acceptable levels, and those which monitor and ensure proper functioning of pump bay water level instruments. The inspectors also reviewed the licensees ability to ensure functionality of the intake structure during adverse weather conditions.
In addition, the inspectors reviewed corrective action documents related to the heat exchangers/coolers and heat sink to verify that the licensee had an appropriate threshold for identifying issues and to evaluate the effectiveness of their corrective actions. The documents that were reviewed are included in the Attachment to this report.
These inspection activities constituted three heat sink inspection samples as defined in Inspection Procedure 71111.07-05.
b. Findings
No findings were identified.
1R11 Licensed Operator Requalification Program
.1 Resident Inspector Quarterly Review of Licensed Operator Requalification
a. Inspection Scope
On June 6, 2016, the inspectors observed a crew of licensed operators in the plants simulator during licensed operator requalification training. The inspectors verified that operator performance was adequate, evaluators were identifying and documenting crew performance problems, and that training was being conducted in accordance with licensee procedures. The inspectors evaluated the following areas:
- licensed operator performance;
- crews clarity and formality of communications;
- ability to take timely actions in the conservative direction;
- prioritization, interpretation, and verification of annunciator alarms;
- correct use and implementation of abnormal and emergency procedures;
- control board manipulations;
- oversight and direction from supervisors; and
- ability to identify and implement appropriate TS actions and Emergency Plan actions and notifications.
The crews performance in these areas was compared to pre-established operator action expectations and successful critical task completion requirements. Documents reviewed are listed in the Attachment to this report.
This inspection constituted one quarterly licensed operator requalification program simulator sample as defined in IP 71111.11-05.
b. Findings
No findings were identified.
.2 Resident Inspector Quarterly Observation During Periods of Heightened Activity or Risk
a. Inspection Scope
On June 4, 2016, the inspectors observed a Reactivity Adjustment/Rod Sequence Exchange Evolution. This was an activity that required heightened awareness or was related to increased risk. The inspectors evaluated the following areas:
- licensed operator performance;
- crews clarity and formality of communications;
- ability to take timely actions in the conservative direction;
- prioritization, interpretation, and verification of annunciator alarms;
- correct use and implementation of procedures;
- control board manipulations; and
- oversight and direction from supervisors.
The performance in these areas was compared to pre-established operator action expectations, procedural compliance and task completion requirements. Documents reviewed are listed in the Attachment to this report.
This inspection constituted one quarterly licensed operator heightened activity/risk sample as defined in IP 71111.11-05.
b. Findings
No findings were identified.
1R12 Maintenance Effectiveness
.1 Routine Quarterly Evaluations
a. Inspection Scope
The inspectors evaluated degraded performance issues involving the following risk-significant systems:
The inspectors reviewed events such as where ineffective equipment maintenance had resulted in valid or invalid automatic actuations of engineered safeguards systems and independently verified the licensee's actions to address system performance or condition problems in terms of the following:
- implementing appropriate work practices;
- identifying and addressing common cause failures;
- scoping of systems in accordance with Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) 50.65(b) of the maintenance rule;
- characterizing system reliability issues for performance;
- charging unavailability for performance;
- trending key parameters for condition monitoring;
- ensuring 10 CFR 50.65(a)(1) or (a)(2) classification or re-classification; and
- verifying appropriate performance criteria for structures, systems, and components/functions classified as (a)(2), or appropriate and adequate goals and corrective actions for systems classified as (a)(1).
The inspectors assessed performance issues with respect to the reliability, availability, and condition monitoring of the system. In addition, the inspectors verified maintenance effectiveness issues were entered into the CAP with the appropriate significance characterization. Documents reviewed are listed in the Attachment to this report.
This inspection constituted one quarterly maintenance effectiveness sample as defined in IP 71111.12-05.
b. Findings
No findings were identified.
1R13 Maintenance Risk Assessments and Emergent Work Control
a. Inspection Scope
The inspectors reviewed the licensee's evaluation and management of plant risk for the maintenance and emergent work activities affecting risk-significant and safety-related equipment listed below to verify that the appropriate risk assessments were performed prior to removing equipment for work:
- main steam line low pressure group 1 isolation instrument test and calibration (RX in Run);
- 12 EDG-ESW maintenance including relay replacement;
- replace relay 97-56 low voltage transfer to #12 diesel generator; and
- 0051 main steam line high flow group 1 isolation instrumentation.
These activities were selected based on their potential risk significance relative to the Reactor Safety Cornerstones. As applicable for each activity, the inspectors verified that risk assessments were performed as required by 10 CFR 50.65(a)(4) and were accurate and complete. When emergent work was performed, the inspectors verified that the plant risk was promptly reassessed and managed. The inspectors reviewed the scope of maintenance work, discussed the results of the assessment with the licensee's probabilistic risk analyst or shift technical advisor, and verified plant conditions were consistent with the risk assessment. The inspectors also reviewed TS requirements and walked down portions of redundant safety systems, when applicable, to verify risk analysis assumptions were valid and applicable requirements were met.
Documents reviewed during this inspection are listed in the Attachment to this report.
These maintenance risk assessments and emergent work control activities constituted four samples as defined in IP 71111.13-05.
b. Findings
No findings were identified.
1R15 Operability Determinations and Functional Assessments
.1 Operability Evaluations
a. Inspection Scope
The inspectors reviewed the following issues:
- high pressure coolant injection oil leak;
- engineering evaluation of wells and domestic water piping above MCC-143A/B; and
- 2 RS transformer X2 bushing hot spot.
The inspectors selected these potential operability issues based on the risk significance of the associated components and systems. The inspectors evaluated the technical adequacy of the evaluations to ensure that TS operability was properly justified and the subject component or system remained available such that no unrecognized increase in risk occurred. The inspectors compared the operability and design criteria in the appropriate sections of the TS and USAR to the licensees evaluations to determine whether the components or systems were operable. Where compensatory measures were required to maintain operability, the inspectors determined whether the measures in place would function as intended and were properly controlled. The inspectors determined, where appropriate, compliance with bounding limitations associated with the evaluations. Additionally, the inspectors reviewed a sampling of corrective action documents to verify that the licensee was identifying and correcting any deficiencies associated with operability evaluations. Documents reviewed are listed in the to this report.
This operability inspection constituted three samples as defined in IP 71111.15-05.
b. Findings
No findings were identified.
1R18 Plant Modifications
a. Inspection Scope
The inspectors reviewed the following modifications:
The inspectors reviewed the configuration changes and associated 10 CFR 50.59 safety evaluation screening against the design basis, the USAR, and the TS, as applicable, to verify that the modifications did not affect the operability or availability of the affected systems. The inspectors, as applicable, observed ongoing and completed work activities to ensure that the modifications were installed as directed and consistent with the design control documents; the modifications operated as expected; post-modification testing adequately demonstrated continued system operability, availability, and reliability; and that operation of the modifications did not impact the operability of any interfacing systems. As applicable, the inspectors verified that relevant procedure, design, and licensing documents were properly updated. Lastly, the inspectors discussed the plant modification with operations, engineering, and training personnel to ensure that the individuals were aware of how the operation with the plant modification in place could impact overall plant performance. Documents reviewed are listed in the Attachment to this report.
This inspection constituted one temporary modification sample and one permanent plant modification sample as defined in IP 71111.18-05.
b. Findings
No findings were identified.
1R19 Post-Maintenance Testing
a. Inspection Scope
The inspectors reviewed the following post-maintenance (PM) activities to verify that procedures and test activities were adequate to ensure system operability and functional capability:
- 11 emergency service water pump post maintenance test (PMT) and return to service testing;
- D90 16 battery swing charger (250VDC), D90 PMT;
- core spray pump discharge relief valve replacement, Ops-RV-1746 PMT;
- 12 EDG circulating oil pump check valve replace, P-228 PMT;
OPS-E-5A; and
These activities were selected based upon the structure, system, or component's ability to impact risk. The inspectors evaluated these activities for the following (as applicable):
the effect of testing on the plant had been adequately addressed; testing was adequate for the maintenance performed; acceptance criteria were clear and demonstrated operational readiness; test instrumentation was appropriate; tests were performed as written in accordance with properly reviewed and approved procedures; equipment was returned to its operational status following testing (temporary modifications or jumpers required for test performance were properly removed after test completion); and test documentation was properly evaluated. The inspectors evaluated the activities against TSs, the USAR, 10 CFR Part 50 requirements, licensee procedures, and various U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) generic communications to ensure that the test results adequately ensured that the equipment met the licensing basis and design requirements. In addition, the inspectors reviewed corrective action documents associated with post-maintenance tests to determine whether the licensee was identifying problems and entering them in the CAP and that the problems were being corrected commensurate with their importance to safety. Documents reviewed are listed in the Attachment to this report.
This inspection constituted six post-maintenance testing samples as defined in IP 71111.19-05.
b. Findings
No findings were identified.
1R22 Surveillance Testing
a. Inspection Scope
The inspectors reviewed the test results for the following activities to determine whether risk-significant systems and equipment were capable of performing their intended safety function and to verify testing was conducted in accordance with applicable procedural and TS requirements:
- 11 emergency diesel generator/11 emergency service water quarterly pump and valve tests [Routine];
- safeguard bus voltage protection relay unit functional test (0301) [Routine];
- 11 emergency service water pump pre service test [IST];
- torus vacuum breaker operability check (0141) [Routine];
- standby liquid control (SBLC) quarterly pump & valve tests [IST]; and
- wide range gas monitor weekly test [Routine].
The inspectors observed in-plant activities and reviewed procedures and associated records to determine the following:
- did preconditioning occur;
- the effects of the testing were adequately addressed by control room personnel or engineers prior to the commencement of the testing;
- acceptance criteria were clearly stated, demonstrated operational readiness, and were consistent with the system design basis;
- plant equipment calibration was correct, accurate, and properly documented;
- as-left setpoints were within required ranges; and the calibration frequency was in accordance with TSs, the USAR, procedures, and applicable commitments;
- measuring and test equipment calibration was current;
- test equipment was used within the required range and accuracy; applicable prerequisites described in the test procedures were satisfied;
- test frequencies met TS requirements to demonstrate operability and reliability; tests were performed in accordance with the test procedures and other applicable procedures; jumpers and lifted leads were controlled and restored where used;
- test data and results were accurate, complete, within limits, and valid;
- test equipment was removed after testing;
- where applicable for inservice testing activities, testing was performed in accordance with the applicable version of Section XI, American Society of Mechanical Engineers Code, and reference values were consistent with the system design basis;
- where applicable, test results not meeting acceptance criteria were addressed with an adequate operability evaluation or the system or component was declared inoperable;
- where applicable for safety-related instrument control surveillance tests, reference setting data were accurately incorporated in the test procedure;
- where applicable, actual conditions encountering high resistance electrical contacts were such that the intended safety function could still be accomplished;
- prior procedure changes had not provided an opportunity to identify problems encountered during the performance of the surveillance or calibration test;
- equipment was returned to a position or status required to support the performance of its safety functions; and
- all problems identified during the testing were appropriately documented and dispositioned in the CAP.
Documents reviewed are listed in the Attachment to this report.
This inspection constituted four routine surveillance testing samples and two in-service test samples as defined in IP 71111.22, Sections-02 and-03.
b. Findings
No findings were identified.
RADIATION SAFETY
2RS5 Radiation Monitoring Instrumentation
.1 Walkdowns and Observations (02.02)
a. Inspection Scope
The inspectors assessed select portable survey instruments that were available for use for current calibration and source check stickers, and instrument material condition and operability.
The inspectors observed licensee staff demonstrate performance checks of various types of portable survey instruments. The inspectors assessed whether high-range instruments responded to radiation on all appropriate scales.
The inspectors walked down area radiation monitors and continuous air monitors to determine whether they were appropriately positioned relative to the radiation sources or areas they were intended to monitor. The inspectors compared monitor response with actual area conditions for selected monitors.
The inspectors assessed the functional checks for select personnel contamination monitors, portal monitors, and small article monitors to verify they were performed in accordance with the manufacturers recommendations and licensee procedures.
These inspection activities constituted one sample as defined in IP 71124.05-05.
b. Findings
No findings were identified.
.2 Calibration and Testing Program (02.03)
a. Inspection Scope
The inspectors assessed laboratory analytical instruments used for radiological analyses to determine whether daily performance checks and calibration data indicated that the frequency of the calibrations was adequate and there were no indications of degraded instrument performance. The inspectors assessed whether appropriate corrective actions were implemented in response to indications of degraded instrument performance.
The inspectors reviewed the methods and sources used to perform whole body count functional checks before daily use and assessed whether check sources were appropriate and aligned with the plants isotopic mix. The inspectors reviewed whole body count calibration records since the last inspection and evaluated whether calibration sources were representative of the plant source term and that appropriate calibration phantoms were used. The inspectors looked for anomalous results or other indications of instrument performance problems.
Inspectors reviewed select containment high-range monitor calibration and assessed whether an electronic calibration was completed for all range decades, with at least 1 decade at or below 10 rem/hour calibrated using an appropriate radiation source, and calibration acceptance criteria was reasonable.
The inspectors reviewed select monitors used to survey personnel and equipment for unrestricted release to assess whether the alarm setpoints were reasonable under the circumstances to ensure that licensed material was not released from the site. The inspectors reviewed the calibration documentation for each instrument selected and discussed the calibration methods with the licensee to determine consistency with the manufacturers recommendations.
The inspectors reviewed calibration documentation for select portable survey instruments, area radiation monitors, and air samplers. The inspectors reviewed detector measurement geometry and calibration methods for portable survey instruments and area radiation monitors calibrated on-site and observed the licensee demonstrate use of the instrument calibrator. The inspectors assessed whether appropriate corrective actions were taken for instruments that failed performance checks or were found significantly out of calibration, and that the licensee had evaluated the possible consequences of instrument use since the last successful calibration or performance check.
The inspectors reviewed the current output values for instrument calibrators. The inspectors assessed whether the licensee periodically measured calibrator output over the range of the instruments used with measuring devices that have been calibrated by a facility using National Institute of Standards and Technology traceable sources and corrective factors for these measuring devices were properly applied in its output verification.
The inspectors reviewed the licensees Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) 61, Licensing Requirements for Land Disposal of Radioactive Waste, source term to assess whether calibration sources used were representative of the types and energies of radiation encountered in the plant.
These inspection activities constituted one sample as defined in IP 71124.05-05.
b. Findings
No findings were identified.
.3 Problem Identification and Resolution (02.04)
a. Inspection Scope
The inspectors evaluated whether problems associated with radiation monitoring instrumentation were being identified by the licensee at an appropriate threshold and were properly addressed for resolution. The inspectors assessed the appropriateness of the corrective actions for a selected sample of problems documented by the licensee that involve radiation monitoring instrumentation.
These inspection activities constituted one sample as defined in IP 71124.05-05.
b. Findings
No findings were identified.
OTHER ACTIVITIES
Cornerstones: Initiating Events, Mitigating Systems, Barrier Integrity, Emergency Preparedness, Public Radiation Safety, Occupational Radiation Safety, and Security
4OA1 Performance Indicator Verification
.1 Safety System Functional Failures
a. Inspection Scope
The inspectors sampled licensee submittals for the Safety System Functional Failures performance indicator (PI) for the period from the second Quarter 2015 through the first Quarter 2016. To determine the accuracy of the PI data reported during those periods, PI definitions and guidance contained in the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) Document 99-02, Regulatory Assessment Performance Indicator Guideline, Revision 7, dated August 31, 2013, were used. The inspectors reviewed the licensees operator narrative logs, issue reports, event reports and NRC Integrated Inspection Reports for the period of April 2015 through March 2016 to validate the accuracy of the submittals. The inspectors also reviewed the licensees issue report database to determine if any problems had been identified with the PI data collected or transmitted for this indicator and none were identified. Documents reviewed are listed in the Attachment to this report.
This inspection constituted one safety system functional failure sample as defined in IP 71151-05.
b. Findings
No findings were identified.
.2 Reactor Coolant System Leakage
a. Inspection Scope
The inspectors sampled licensee submittals for the Unplanned Scrams with Complications performance indicator for the period from the second Quarter 2015 through the first Quarter 2016. To determine the accuracy of the PI data reported during those periods, PI definitions and guidance contained in the NEI Document 99-02, Regulatory Assessment Performance Indicator Guideline, Revision 7, dated August 31, 2013, were used. The inspectors reviewed the licensees operator narrative logs, issue reports, event reports and NRC Integrated Inspection Reports for the period of April 2015 through March 2016 to validate the accuracy of the submittals. The inspectors also reviewed the licensees issue report database to determine if any problems had been identified with the PI data collected or transmitted for this indicator and none were identified. Documents reviewed are listed in the Attachment to this report.
This inspection constituted one reactor coolant system leakage sample as defined in IP 71151-05.
b. Findings
No findings were identified.
4OA2 Identification and Resolution of Problems
.1 Routine Review of Items Entered into the Corrective Action Program
a. Inspection Scope
As part of the various baseline inspection procedures discussed in previous sections of this report, the inspectors routinely reviewed issues during baseline inspection activities and plant status reviews to verify they were being entered into the licensees CAP at an appropriate threshold, that adequate attention was being given to timely corrective actions, and that adverse trends were identified and addressed. Attributes reviewed included: identification of the problem was complete and accurate; timeliness was commensurate with the safety significance; evaluation and disposition of performance issues, generic implications, common causes, contributing factors, root causes, extent-of-condition reviews, and previous occurrences reviews were proper and adequate; and that the classification, prioritization, focus, and timeliness of corrective actions were commensurate with safety and sufficient to prevent recurrence of the issue.
Minor issues entered into the licensees CAP as a result of the inspectors observations are included in the Attachment to this report.
These routine reviews for the identification and resolution of problems did not constitute any additional inspection samples. Instead, by procedure they were considered an integral part of the inspections performed during the quarter and documented in Section 1 of this report.
b. Findings
No findings were identified.
.2 Daily Corrective Action Program Reviews
a. Inspection Scope
In order to assist with the identification of repetitive equipment failures and specific human performance issues for follow-up, the inspectors performed a daily screening of items entered into the licensees CAP. This review was accomplished through inspection of the stations daily condition report packages.
These daily reviews were performed by procedure as part of the inspectors daily plant status monitoring activities and, as such, did not constitute any separate inspection samples.
b. Findings
No findings were identified.
.3 Annual Follow-up of Selected Issues:
In-depth Review of Extended Power Uprate Corrective Action Program Items
a. Inspection Scope
The inspectors selected for review, items entered in the licensees CAP documenting issues and corrective actions arising during the licensees Extended Power Uprate (EPU) between 2013 and 2015. Forty-five CAP issues and corrective actions were reviewed for accuracy, completeness, and the timeliness of issue closure. These issues were also reviewed for classification and prioritization of the problems resolution and whether the resolution was commensurate with the safety significance as well as actions take to preclude repetition in the case of significant conditions adverse to quality.
This review constituted one in-depth problem identification and resolution sample as defined in IP 71152-05.
b. Findings
No findings were identified.
.4 Semi-Annual Trend Review
a. Inspection Scope
The inspectors performed a review of the licensees corrective action program and associated documents to identify trends that could indicate the existence of a more significant safety issue. The inspectors review was focused on repetitive equipment issues, but also considered the results of daily inspector corrective action program item screening discussed in Section 4OA2.1 above, licensee trending efforts, and licensee human performance results. The inspectors review nominally considered the 6-month period of January 1, 2016 through June 30, 2016, although some examples expanded beyond those dates where the scope of the trend warranted.
The review also included issues documented outside the corrective action program in major equipment problem lists, repetitive and/or rework maintenance lists, departmental problem/challenges lists, system health reports, quality assurance audit/surveillance reports, self-assessment reports, and Maintenance Rule assessments. The inspectors compared and contrasted their results with the results contained in the licensees corrective action program trending reports. Corrective actions associated with a sample of the issues identified in the licensees trending reports were reviewed for adequacy.
This review constituted one semi-annual trend review inspection sample as defined in IP 71152.
b. Findings
No findings were identified.
4OA5 Other Activities
.1 Power Uprate
a. Inspection Scope
On December 10, 2013, the NRC approved the extended power uprate licensee amendment for Monticello. This licensee amendment allowed Monticello to increase their licensed rated thermal power by approximately 13 percent from 1775 MWt to 2004 MWt.
Over the successive two years, the licensee implemented several extensive plant modifications and design changes, made revisions to associated plant operating and emergency operating procedures and conducted simulator training sessions with plant operators in support of the power uprate. The licensee began normal operation at the full uprated power level on July 16, 2015.
The NRC inspected the licensees implementation of the uprate using Inspection Procedure 71004, Power Uprate. This inspection consisted of a coordinated effort between the resident and region based inspectors, throughout the implementation period. As each specific inspection sample was completed, the individual results were documented in various NRC inspection reports.
The following provides an overall summary of the NRC inspections relating to the Monticello Extended Power Uprate as specified by Inspection Procedure 71004.
IP 71004 has eight inspection areas, these areas were inspected and are detailed in the following reports:
1. Safety Evaluation; IP 71111.17 and 71111.21
- IR 2010-006
2. Plant Modification; IP 71111.07, 71111.17, 71111.18, and 71111.21
- IR 2009-002
- IR 2009-004
- IR 2009-005
- IR 2009-007
- IR 2013-002
- IR 2013-004
- IR 2013-007
3. Post Maintenance or Surveillance Tests; IP 71111.19 and 71111.22
- IR 2009-002
- IR 2009-003
- IR 2013-002
- IR 2013-003
4. Integrated Plant Operations at EPU; IP 71104, 71111.11, and 71111.20
- IR 2013-005
- IR 2014-004
- IR 2015-002
- IR 2015-003
5. Monitor Major Integrated Tests; IP 71104
- IR 2013-005
- IR 2014-002
- IR 2014-004
- IR 2015-001
- IR 2015-005
6. Flow Accelerated Corrosion and Erosion Corrosion Reviews; IP 49001
- IR 2010-008
- IR 2011-002
7. Licensee Actions for New or more likely initiating events; IP 71111.17
- IR 2013-003
- IR 2014-003
- IR 2014-007
- IR 2016-002
8. Problem Identification and Resolution; IP 71152
- IR 2009-004
- IR 2010-007
- IR 2014-007
- IR 2016-002 This review closes out the Monticello Power Uprate (IP 71004) Inspection.
b. Findings
No findings were identified.
4OA6 Management Meetings
.1
Exit Meeting Summary
On July 6, 2016, the inspectors presented the inspection results to you, and other members of your staff.
.2 Interim Exit Meetings
Interim exits were conducted for:
- The inspection results for the Triennial Review of Heat Sink Performance were discussed with you on April 22, 2016.
- The inspection results for the area of radiological hazard assessment and exposure controls were discussed with you on May 13, 2016.
The inspectors confirmed that none of the potential report input discussed was considered proprietary. Any proprietary material received during the inspections were returned to the licensee.
ATTACHMENT:
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION
KEY POINTS OF CONTACT
Licensee
- P. Gardner, Site Vice President
- K. Scott, Director Site Operations
- H. Hanson, Jr., Plant Manager
- T. Witschen, Operations Manager
- M. Lingenfelter, Director of Engineering
- B. Olson, Maintenance Manager
- S. Quiggle, Chemistry Manager
- C. England, Radiation Protection Manager
- A. Ward, Regulatory Affairs Manager
- D. Bosnic, Director Regulatory & Business Support
- P. Young, Program Engineering Manager
- R. Garding, Program Engineering Supervisor
- B. Halvorson, System Engineer Supervisor
- S. Grygiel, Program Engineer
- K. Brandtjen, Program Engineer
- S. Sollom, Regulatory Affairs Engineer
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
- K. Riemer, Chief, Reactor Projects Branch 2
- M. Jeffers, Chief, Engineering Branch 2
LIST OF ITEMS OPENED, CLOSED, AND DISCUSSED
Opened
None
Closed
None
Discussed
None